Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Effects of Wet-Pressing and Cross-Linking on the Tensile Properties of Carbon Nanotube Fibers.


ABSTRACT: To increase the strength of carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers (CNTFs), the mean size of voids between bundles of CNTs was reduced by wet-pressing, and the CNTs were cross-linked. Separate and simultaneous physical (roller pressing) and chemical methods (cross-linking) were tested to confirm each method's effects on the CNTF strength. By reducing the fraction of pores, roller pressing decreased the cross-sectional area from 160 ?m² to 66 ?m² and increased the average load-at-break from 2.83 ± 0.25 cN to 4.41 ± 0.16 cN. Simultaneous injection of crosslinker and roller pressing augmented the cross-linking effect by increasing the infiltration of the crosslinker solution into the CNTF, so the specific strength increased from 0.40 ± 0.05 N/tex to 0.67 ± 0.04 N/tex. To increase the strength by cross-linking, it was necessary that the size of the pores inside the CNTF were reduced, and the infiltration of the solution was increased. These results suggest that combined physical and chemical treatment is effective to increase the strength of CNTFs.

SUBMITTER: Cho H 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6266003 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Effects of Wet-Pressing and Cross-Linking on the Tensile Properties of Carbon Nanotube Fibers.

Cho Hyunjung H   Lee Jinwoo J   Lee Haemin H   Lee Sung-Hyun SH   Park Junbeom J   Lee Cheol-Hun CH   Lee Kun-Hong KH  

Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 20181102 11


To increase the strength of carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers (CNTFs), the mean size of voids between bundles of CNTs was reduced by wet-pressing, and the CNTs were cross-linked. Separate and simultaneous physical (roller pressing) and chemical methods (cross-linking) were tested to confirm each method's effects on the CNTF strength. By reducing the fraction of pores, roller pressing decreased the cross-sectional area from 160 μm² to 66 μm² and increased the average load-at-break from 2.83 ± 0.25 cN  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC8471937 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5456468 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC3807724 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6223678 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3163387 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6858663 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8201185 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6609687 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5308460 | biostudies-other